Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research
University of Mohammed Seddik Ben Yahia, Jijel
Faculty of Letters and Languages
Department of English
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilments of the Requirements for a Master Degree in English Didactics
Submitted by: Supervised by:
Sawssen Laribi Ilham Melit Sara Boulfous
Board of Examiners
Supervisor: Ilham Mellit Jijel University
Chairperson: Hiba Tiouane Jijel University Examiner: Mohammed Boukezzoula Jijel University
Academic Year: 2019-2020
Examining the Role of Teacher’s Oral Corrective Feedback in Enhancing EFL Students’ Writing Performance
Dedication
This humble work is dedicated:
To my wonderful parents To my sisters and brothers
To my fiancé Adel
To whoever happens to read this dissertation.
Sarah
Dedication
To my dear parents
To my beloved brother Loukman
To the rest of my beloved family: Hadjer, Houssam, and Choaibe.
Sawssen
Acknowledgements
Our infinite gratitude go to our supervisor Miss Melit Ilham for her sincere commitment, and encouragements through the development of this work.
Special thanks go to all the members of the jury: Dr. Boukezzoula Mohamed, Miss Tiouane Hiba, for accepting to read and assess this humble work.
We also grateful to all the written expression teachers who respond to the
questionnaire. Moreover, our special thanks for Miss Boukhdana and Soukou for facilitating the process of conducting the writing test.
Last but not least, we would like to thank Miss Assia Zeraoulia for providing us with precious instructions and guidance.
Abstract
The current study has examined the impact of oral corrective feedback on enhancing students' writing. Theoretically, it is mainly focused on the relationship between teachers’ oral corrective feedback and students' writing. It aims at investigating the teachers' perceptions of oral corrective feedback as a relevant tool for enhancing students' writing. In addition, it seeks to explore the effects of oral corrective feedback on students' paragraph writing. In order to accomplish these aims, a teachers' questionnaire and a pre-experiment were implemented with a sample of 7 written expression teachers at the department of English at Mohamed Sedik ben Yahia university-Jijel, and second year students of English from the same university. The findings showed that teachers consider oral corrective feedback as a powerful tool for improving students' writing and its absence would effect negatively on students' level in writing. Furthermore, there a strong positive correlation between teachers oral corrective feedback and students' writing errors especially those errors related to the form of the language. However, writing's errors related to the content were not highly improved.
Key Words: Oral Corrective Feedback, The Writing Skill, Error Correction, Recast
List of Abbreviations
EFL English as a Foreign Language
ESL: English as a Second Language
SL: Second Language
Vs: Versus
L1: First Language
L2: Second Language
CF: Corrective Feedback
List of Tables
Table 1 Teachers' Qualifications...44
Table 2 Teachers' Experience at University...45
Table 3 Teachers' Experience in Teaching Written Expression...46
Table 4 Qualities of Effective Writing...47
Table 5 Students' Difficulties in Writing...48
Table 6 Teachers' Evaluation for their Students' Writing Skill...49
Table 7 Teachers' Perceptions of te Difficulty/Easiness of the Writing Skill...50
Table 8 Teachers' Focus in Writing Assessment...51
Table 9 Teachers' Use of Feedback During the Writing Process...52
Table 10 Teachers' Choice of Type of Feedback for Writing...53
Table 11 Errors' Treatments...54
Table 12 Frequency of Responding to Oral Feedback...55
Table 13 Feedback' s Focus...56
Table 14 Frequency of Providing Oral Feedback...57
Table 15 Feedback' s Timing...58
Table 16 Teachers' Attitude Towards the difficulty of Implementing Oral Feedback on Writing...59
Table 17 Types of Oral Correction...60
Table 18 Teachers' Prefrences for the Source of Feedback...61 Table 19 Teachers' Attitudes Towards Students' Prefrences in Writing...62
Lists of Figures
Figure 1: A Sequence of Ideas...11
Figure 2: Categorization of Teachers' Oral Feedback...68
Figure 3: Students' Response to Feedback...72
Figure 4: Proportion of Oral Comments in First Drafts...72
Figure 5: Proportion of Oral Comments Across Drafts...73
Table of Contents
Dedication
Acknowledgements
Abstract
List of Abbreviations
List of Tables
List of Figures
Table of Contents
General Introduction...1 .
1. Statement of the Problem ... 1
2. Research Hypothesis ... 2
3. Research Questions ... 2
4. Aim of the study………...2
5. Methodology of the Research...3
6. Structure of the Study ... 3
Chapter One: The Writing Skill
Introduction
1.1. Definition of Writing...5
1.2. The Significance of Writing for EFL Leaners...6
1.3. Elements of Effective Writing...8
1.3.1.The Purpose...8
1.3.2. The Audience...9
1.3.3. Organization...9
1.3.4. Clarity...10
1.3.5. Word Choice...10
1.3.6. Coherence...11
1.3.7. Mechanics...12
1.4. Sources of Errors in L2 Writing...12
1.5. Writing’s Assessment...13
1.5.1. Improving Students’ Writing...14
1.5.1.1 Writing Strategies...16
1.5.1.2. Summarization...16
1.5.1.3. Collaborative Writing...17
1.5.1.4. Specific Product Goals...17
1.5.1.5 Word Processing...17
1.5.1.6. Sentence Combining...17
1.5.1.7. Prewriting...17
1.5.1.8. Inquiry Activities...17
1.5.1.9. Process Writing Approach...18
1.5.1.10. Study of models...18
1.5.1.11. Writing for Content Area Learning...18
Conclusion...18
Chapter Two: Oral Corrective Feedback Introduction...19
2.1. Definition of Feedback, Corrective Feedback, and Oral Feedback...19
2.2. The Role of Corrective Feedback in Second language learning...20
2.3. The Debate about Corrective Feedback...22
2.4. Students’ Uptake...23
2.5. Strategies of Oral Corrective Feedback...25
2.5.1. Explicit Feedback...25
2.5.2. Recast...26
2.5.3. Clarification Request...26
2.5.4. Elicitation...27
2.5.5. Repetition...27
2.5.6. Meta-Linguistic Feedback...27
2.6. The Focus of Feedback: Form Focus VS Content Focus...28
2.7. Sources of Feedback...29
2.7.1. Teachers Feedback...29
2.7.2. Peer Feedback...30
2.7.3. Conferencing...30
2.7.4. Self Feedback...31
2.7.5. Electronic Feedback...32
2.8. Amount of Feedback...32
2.9. Qualities of Effective Corrective Feedback...34
2.10. Timing of Oral Corrective Feedback...35
2.11. Teachers VS Students Preferences for Corrective Feedback...37
2.12. The Impact of Oral Corrective Feedback on Students’ Writing...39
Conclusion...40
Chapter Three: Research Methodology and Data Analysis and Discussion Introduction...42
3.1.1. Research Design...42
3.1.2. Sample...42
3.1.3. Data Collection Tool...43
3.1.4. The Administration of the Questionnaire...43
3.1.5. Description of the Questionnaire...43
3.1.6. Presentation and Analysis of the Questionnaire...44
3.1.7. Overall Discussion of the Resuls...64
3.2. The Pre-Experiment...66
3.2.1. Sample-Participants in the Pre-Experiment...66
3.2.2. Description and Administration of the Pre-Experiment...66
3.2.3. Presentation and Analysis of the Pre-Experiment...67
3.2.4. Overall Discussion and Interpretation of the Results of the Pre-Experiment...69
Conclusion...73
3.3. The limitations of the study...74
3.4. Recommendations...74
General conclusion...75
References...76
Appendices...88
Résumé...96
صﺧﻠﻣ...97
General Introduction
Writing is a highly-demanding and complex skill for both native and non-native speakers of English. It is a basic skill which includes not only the graphic representation of speech, but also the expression and the arrangement of ideas according to the conventions of language (Harmer, 2001). It is generally agreed that writing is a valued and crucial skill that ease the learning process. However, it is considered as one of the most difficult skills for EFL learners. Underscoring this view, Richard and Renandya (2002) claimed that “there is no doubt that writing is the most difficult skill for EFL students to master” (p. 303). Likewise, Nunan (2000) pointed out that it is a great challenge to produce a coherent, fluent, and extended piece of writing. Thus, the fact that improving the writing skill is not an easy process lead to a surge interest among researchers in how to best use feedback to develop the writing skill. Therefore, many researchers advocated the significance of feedback on enhancing the writing skill (Hyland (2003); Ferris (2003) & Harmer (2004); Hyland and Hyland (2006)). Indeed, the researchers have examined the impact of written feedback on the writing skill. However, the current study is an attempt to discover the aspects of the language that seemed to be improved through implementing oral corrective feedback on students' paragraphs writing.
1. The Statement of the Problem
Writing has always been one of the most challenging skills for almost all the learners.
In other words, what makes writing a problematic task is the fact that learners are required to master all the mechanics related to the process of writing which includes content, vocabulary, language use, spelling, organization, capitalization, and punctuation. Due to the complexity of the writing skill, the plurality of EFL learners produces unacceptable written composition.
Precisely, the deteriorating level of students' writing mainly in Algeria is not a secret.
Therefore, successful teachers select the appropriate type of feedback to help student in
improving their writing level. Principally, teachers use written comments as the main strategy to correct students' writing. In this line, as master two students of English at Mohamed Sedik ben Yahia university-in Jijel, we have observed that teachers mainly use written feedback to proofread students' written composition and oral feedback is rarely used because it consumes time and the students not all time fully consontrated with the teachers' talk. As a result, we decided to discover the effects of oral corrective feedback on the form and the content of students' paragraphs writing.
2. Research Hypotheses
Based on what has been mentioned we hypothesize that teachers’ use of corrective feedback in general and oral corrective feedback in particular in second language writing will enhance students writing capacities.
3. Research Questions
The study specifically aims to find answers to the following research questions
What are the teachers attitudes towards the role of oral corrective feedback in enhancing EFL students writing performance?
What are the effects of oral corrective feedback on EFL students’ paragraph writing?
4. The Aim of the Study
The present study is set out specifically to explore written expression teachers' attitudes and perceptions toward using oral corrective feedback as a relevant tool for
enhancing their students' writing. Additionally, it seeks to examine the effects of oral corrective feedback on students' paragraph writing.
5. The Methodology of The Research
The study will take place at university level with second year students of English.
Therefore, to obtain information we will deal with two samples.
• Teachers of written expression at the department of English (7 teachers)
• Second year students of English (40 students)
For the sake of understanding the impact of teachers' oral correction on enhancing students' writing, two research instruments will be used: a questionnaire will be directed to written expression teachers at the department of English to collect their points of view concerning the impact of oral corrective feedback. Furthermore, the pre-experiment of second year students of English meant to analyse students' paragraph writing before and after the implementation of oral feedback. Eventually, the study will be descriptive in nature and statistical measures will be used to reach adequate results.
6. The Structure of The Study
This dissertation is organized around three main chapters: the first two chapters compose the literature review while the third chapter is devoted to the practical part. The first chapter is an overview about the writing skill; it includes the significance of the writing skill and the difficulties faced by EFL learners while writing, further it spots light on elements of effective writing. The second chapter is concerned with oral corrective feedback and its impact on the writing of students. The last chapter deals with data analysis. It contains a detailed analysis of teachers' questionnaire and the pre-experiment as well as the results generated by the previous two research instruments.
Chapter One: The Writing Skill General Introduction
Writing has a significant role in the process of learning. It is considered as one of the four basic skills of the English language. A skill that facilitates the process of language learning, enlarges the scope of critical thinking, and enables students to communicate. Writing in a second or foreign language is one of the most challenging aspects of language learning.
The latter requires considerable practice and formal instruction, for this reason, the writing skill receives a great interest from many researchers in the field.
This chapter will present the writing skill in general, including the different definitions given by many researchers, the significance of this skill for EFL learners, and the various elements of effective composition. The chapter will also introduce some difficulties encountered by EFL learners during the writing process. Furthermore, this part will clearly make the close relationship between reading and writing, and finally, it will demonstrate what writing assessment is and the various ways to enhance students writing.
1.1. Definition of Writing
Drawing upon the abundance of literature on the topic, different views towards the definition of writing could be reviewed according to various researchers and linguists. Some researchers considered writing as translating one's thoughts via the use of graphic symbols.
For example, Byrne (1979) argued that writing is the act of forming graphic symbols. It, therefore, includes the conventional arrangement of letters into words, and words into sentences that need to flow smoothly to build a coherent whole that is text. This view is supported by Rivers (1968) who stated that “in its simplest form writing can be the act of putting down in conventional graphic form something which has been spoken” (p. 242).
Widdowson (1978) in his turn defined writing as the act of producing accurate sentences and conveying them visually as marks on paper. This involves mainly the use of
graphic language. Following Widdowson’s definition, Troyka (1987) asserted that writing requires more than taking a pen and expecting words to flow perfectly on paper. This indicates how sophisticated writing is. It is not just a matter of correlating graphic symbols together so as to generate words and sentences; rather it is a demanding process that requires many factors (as cited in Aliouchouche, 2017, p. 7). Nunan (1987) supported Troyka's claim saying that: “writing is an extremely complex, cognitive activity for all which the writer is required to demonstrate the control of several variables simultaneously” (p. 36). This implied that writers should demonstrate the ability to use correct sentences, consistent content, adequate vocabulary, good punctuation, and spelling. Consequently, producing a piece of writing involves a given competence in a number of connected spheres.
From those definitions above, we can conclude that writing is a complex process. The latter involves many activities to produce written forms. In doing so, the writer uses certain conventions of variables related to linguistic aspects such as: word spelling, sentence structure, punctuation, coherence, etc. This is in order to express ideas, thoughts, opinions, and feelings so that readers can understand.
1.2. The Significance of Writing for EFL Learners
The importance of writing in EFL learning is embodied in the ways in which the writing skill promotes the development of language proficiency. Recent studies imply that there is a relationship between writing and cognition. Many of them have shown that writing for second and foreign language learners is a tool for learning; writing to learn is just as important as learning to write. According to Spivey (1997), students use a meaning making process which involves selecting, organizing and integrating ideas then, following a logical manner using cohesion markers which make connection within and across the essay in order to communicate their ideas effectively while writing (as cited in Hosseini, Taghizadeh, Zainolabedin & Naseri, 2013, p. 3)
In this vein, Raimes appended that when writing, students are involved in manipulating and practicing various elements of the target language and direct interaction with the text. Great effort is made, hence, in expressing ideas; they use the eyes, the hands, and the brain in a collaborative constant way. It involves intellectual processing in that students think about finding the right sentence, the right words, the utilization of current knowledge that is obtained from educational instruction, and already accumulated knowledge.
Thus, all that is mentioned strengthen language learning (Raimes, 1983).
According to Harmer (2007), writing gives the students more time to think than in spontaneous conversation. This gives them more chance in language processing; that is thinking about the language. Moreover, he also made a difference between the two main reasons for teaching writing. These are writing for learning, and writing for writing. In the former, writing is a tool to apply language; it helps students use the previous knowledge, and to give reinforcement to students. The latter aims to create good writers by improving the students’ writing skills. So, here the language itself is not the main focus of attention.
Another area of the writing’s significance for language learning is explained by Bjork and Raisanen. Bjork and Raisanen (1997) highlighted the importance of writing in all university curricula; they consider writing as a thinking tool. It is a tool for language development, for critical thinking, and for learning in all disciplines. Greenberg and Rath (1985, p. 12) illustrated more the value of this skill for EFL students:
Writing is a powerful instrument of thinking because it provides students with a way of gaining control over their thoughts. Writing shapes their perceptions of themselves and the world. It aids in their personal growth and their affecting change on the environment. Students are often unaware of the power of the written word. Yet, the written word enables the writer perhaps for the first time to sense the power of language to affect another. Through selecting and rejecting,
arranging and rearranging language, the student comes to understand how language is used. (Greenberg & Rath, 1985, p. 12)
Moreover, writing has an essential role in the EFL learning process. It helps in maintaining the already grasped knowledge. According to Chastain (1976), this skill incorporates in the solidification of students’ intake of language vocabulary and structures and supplements the other language skills.
Based on already existing research and theory in the field of EFL writing, one may assert that this skill has a reinforcing role for EFL learners. It is also a language development tool, a learning style, and a skill just as the three remaining skills that EFL learners must acquire. Therefore, it seems judicious to highlight the Main writing difficulties encountered by EFL learners.
1.3. Elements of Effective Writing
Concerning the process of producing an effective piece of writing, learners are required to integrate multiple physical and mental processes to convey information and ideas.
According to Starkey (2004), an effective piece of writing is the one that is organized, clear, and coherent, with an accurate language and effective word choice. The previous definition suggested by Starkey explains that writing in English within an academic context requires various aspects which are: the purpose, the audience, organization, clarity, coherence, word choice, and mechanics.
1.3.1 The Purpose
This element of good writing involves the reasons that lead the writer to write about a specific topic. Indeed, the writer would understand the excitement that they attempt to accomplish for specific needs; the purpose of writing the text and the reader's purpose of reading it will help decisions about content, coverage, and tone.
1.3.2 The Audience
Effective writing is to keep our audience in mind when we write. Thus, before starting the process of writing, we should know who the readers are to write something relevant.
Writers do not write for themselves but, they write for different audiences. Underscoring this view, Walker (2010) pointed out that the writers have to keep their reader connected with every single sentence in the written composition. Therefore, the writers take into account the use of formal language in writing to present their awareness of the conditions of effective language.
1.3.3 Organization
The organization is an important element in any kind of writing. It is referred to as the process of organizing ideas and thoughts before beginning the physical act of writing. In fact, the organization is usually tackled through using some techniques and methods including mainly free writing and brainstorming. The use of pre-writing techniques helps in making a useful plan that ensures the arrangement of the written composition because a plan is made after reading, gathering, and classifying the information from the pre-writing activity.
Brainstorming and free writing are two major strategies used by writers during the pre-writing process in which, “brainstorming is a way to come up with ideas either alone or in a group”
(Galko, 2002, p. 20). The main principle behind brainstorming is to let your ideas flow without judging them. Galko (2002) also defined free writing like the following: “it is writing down your thoughts as they come to you” (p. 21). Usually, when we free-write we do not think about whether the ideas are appropriate or the grammar is perfect. According to Chelsa (2006), Créme and Lea (2008), free writing and brainstorming are important for shaping the learner's ideas permitting time to make the connection between the topic and what comes to the mind of the writer. The main purpose of the organization is to help the reader see the flow
of ideas and how they are organized in a specific way to convey a particular idea. Starkey (2004) claimed that: by following an organized method of writing, you will guide your reader from the first to the last sentence. He or she will be able to see how the various points you make in your piece of writing work together and how they support your thesis. The main advantage of the organization is to help the reader believe what you are saying, and follow your lead.
1.3.4 Clarity
The learner's goal when writing in an academic context is to convey information, including the fact that he can write well (Starkey, 2004). In other words, the writers make the reader recognizes as clearly as possible what is written down. Clarity includes explaining the different points of view using descriptive words and explication devices without any ambiguity to facilitate the reading process. Murray and Hughes (2008) emphasized the significance of clarity in making one's writing readable and accessible. The key to achieve clarity is the use of short sentences and straightforward vocabulary. Furthermore, there are many guidelines that help in achieving clarity in writing. According to Starkey (2004), the learner should eliminate ambiguity through avoiding sophisticated words and sentences which have different meaning. In addition, the learner uses precise modifiers in combination with avoiding the repetition of ideas and information.
1.3.5 Word Choice
Writers have to choose suitable words to accurately convey their ideas and thoughts.
Word choice is one of the essential elements in producing effective writing in which we ensure that the audience understands what the writer is writing. Starkey (2004) and Kane (2000) argued that there are two aspects writers should consider while choosing the items which are: denotation, and connotation. Denotation is the use of the literal meaning of the
word. While, the connotation is defined as: “a word's implied meaning which involves emotions, cultural assumption, and suggestion” (Starkey, 2004, p. 21). Considering connotation, the learner must think beyond the dictionary meaning. Both denotative and connotative meanings must be considered while choosing the relevant word to help understand the real meaning and avoid ambiguity in writing.
1.3.6 Coherence
Coherence has a great role in making an effective piece of writing. Murray and Hughes (2008) said that “coherence is perhaps the single most important element in any kind of writing” (p. 45). That is to say, the success and failure of the writer depend, upon how clearly he or she managed to communicate his/her ideas with the reader. It particularly has to do with arranging ideas in a way that make them more easily and understood by the reader.
The process occurs through the use of some features which include the use of transitional words and phrases, and the use of the right tense to show chronological order. Murray and Hughes (2008) also stated that a good writer is the one “who sticks his ideas together as links in a chain, each link connecting the one before it with the one after. If any links are missing, the connections become unclear and the argument structure breaks down” (p. 45).
Figure1: A Sequence of Ideas (Murray & Hughes, 2008, p. 46)
In any piece of writing, as shown in the figure, the reader understands what he is reading at any particular point through making links or connection with the previous ideas that precede the point.
1.3.7 Mechanics
In writing composition, mechanics refers to the appearance of words and how they are spelled, and arranged on papers. The fact that the first word of a paragraph is usually indented is a matter of mechanics (Kane, 2000). The rules gathered under the mechanics try to make the process of writing consistent and clear. For example, a sentence should begin with a capital letter and end with full stop punctuation (period, question mark...). The rules of mechanics are complex. In fact, they sometimes confuse even professional writers (Starkey, 2004). In other words, Starkey declaimed mechanics in terms of grammar, punctuation, and capitalization. Grammar means the rules which structure our language (Kane, 2000). For example, the knowledge of parts of speech and their use in the process of writing. Indeed, capitalization and punctuation are two essential elements in writing which indicate pauses and sentence boundaries to help in eliminating ambiguity in writing.
1.4. Sources of Errors in L2 Writing
Student writing in the second language involves texts that comprise various types of grammatical, lexical, and rhetorical errors. In fact, the most common errors are committed by writers who have a lot of ideas and information but they do not have the language to express what they want to say in a relevant way. Thus, when the content is rich and the writer has a sense of creativity this would increase the number of errors in the writing composition.
Usually, errors in L2 composition are associated with the learner's competence in L2 writing.
In which behaviourists focus on the error itself or the product on the other hand, the constructive perspective emphasizes the underlying process or why the errors are made.
Researchers have attempted to find the sources of errors in L2 writing and they found that the first source is the interference of the mother tongue; learners may translate from the L1 mentally and the two languages have totally different structures which lead them to different errors. In addition, learners are often uncertain of what they want to express which causes
them to make errors.
Writers in L2 might lack the familiarity with the new rhetorical structures and organization (Groden, 1993; Kaplan, 1987). A student may not be familiar with English rhetoric which leads him/her to writing that seems inappropriate or incoherent to native speakers. In addition, the issue of fossilization is an important source of errors in which learners repeat previous errors and these errors become like a bad habit in the learner's repertoire. Broadly speaking, the most sophisticated about fossilization is the fact that errors will reappear despite the correction and the feedback. Oldin (1994, p. 13) stated that fossilization occurs when “learner inter language competence diverge in more or less permanent way from the target language grammar”.The errors of fossilization are common among the immigrants who learned the language from the street in which the focus is on fluency not on linguistics correctness.
1.5. Writing’ Assessment
When we talk about the teaching of writing, assessment is a major concern. Assessing students’ writing is the process by which instructors can measure the degree at which their students are progressing. Assessment in SL writing is defined as “The process of collecting, analysing and recording information about students’ progress towards achievement of syllabus outcomes” (writing and spelling strategies, 2007, p. 17).
According to Hyland (2003), writing’s assessment is the way by which we can gather information on the learner’s progress towards language ability and achievements. This term is used to refer to written texts, essays, project reports, portfolios or standardized examinations.
Therefore, assessment is a crucial stage in the development of students’ writings for learners as well as for teachers; the former rely on assessment to correct their mistakes, learn and overcome obstacles in writing, the latter benefits from assessment in checking students’
knowledge to teach and reteach ungrasped elements and to discover deficiencies within the
teaching process itself. In this respect, Overmeyer (2009) reported that Assessment when used correctly in a formative way, can improve students’ and teachers’ abilities. Not only to improve, but also to believe in themselves as writers and teachers of writing. And once students believe they are writers, and teachers believe they are teachers of writing, any barrier no matter how imposing, begins to crumble.
However, it is worthwhile to mention here that the assessment of writing is not only concerned with language rules and respecting stages of writing, but also with the content being included in the piece of writing. Harmer (2004) supported that saying “When responding to our students’ work we are not only concerned with the accuracy of their performance but also and this is crucial with the content and design of their writing” (p. 108).
Assessing students’ writing and performance in the class should occur at different stages throughout the course. It could take different forms, which vary according to the level of students, the topic of writing and the objectives set behind the given task.
We can say that the assessment of students' writing is a critical process. In the sense that the teacher is supposed to specify the main assessment’s goals and objectives taking into consideration both process and content of students’ written productions. This is in order to reach what assessment is set for, that is; enhancing students’ writing ability.
1.5.1. Improving Students’ Writing
In L1 and L2 contexts, writing effectively involves the incorporation of different sectors of language knowledge and skills. This includes the ability to produce appropriate content, compose correct sentences in terms of structure and arranging that content coherently using a wide range of vocabulary and syntactic patterns. The latter aims to allow one to express a variety of concepts (Caudery, 1998).
Over the last 40 years, there has been a great interest in the teaching of writing that resulted in many changes in policies and practices in the teaching of L2 writing. Researchers
in the field attempted to provide information about effective writing instruction, among them Raimes. Raimes (1983) pointed out that the main concern of any teacher of writing is to follow effective classroom teaching procedures in order to enhance the students’ writings. The teaching techniques provided by textbooks and training courses today need to be more specified according to students’ level, class, and teaching’s curriculum. These techniques must be examined by teachers with some basic questions in mind that will help to give suitable instruction in writing classrooms.
The seven questions listed below are suggested by Raimes (1983, p. 12-13) to help teachers make suitable decisions in the writing class:
How can writing help my students learn their second language better?
How can I find enough topics?
How can I help to make the subject matter meaningful?
How will I lead my students write?
How are the students going to work together in the classroom?
How much time should I give my students for their writing?
What do I do about errors? (Raimes, 1983, pp. 12-13)
Raimes (1983) also proposed the use of picture teaching technique. He argued that pictures are a valuable source in the class that supports students to produce a good piece of writing. Delrose (2011) declared that nowadays visual organizers are incorporated widely in writing classes and proved to be very effective in providing learners with concrete information that guide learners in writing a composition. These organizers keep learners' focus on key ideas and the relation between them rather than the apparently isolated facts.
This view is shared by Lee (2004) and Raimes (1983).
Steve and Dolores (2011) are also two researchers who are interested in teaching writing and in their turn, they tried to provide some techniques as an attempt to improve the
EFL learner's writing ability. They presented eleven key elements of effective writing , these are; writing strategies, summarization, collaborative writing, specific product goal, word processing, sentence combining, prewriting, inquiry activities, process writing approach, study of models, and the writing for content learning. According to Steve and Dolores (2011), a teacher should incorporate all the eleven elements in his class, because they are interrelated, and mixing them will result in better achievements.
1.5.1.1. Writing Strategies
This includes teaching students the three strategies; planning, revising and editing when writing a composition. According to Graham (2000), strategy instruction requires both explicit and systematic steps in teaching that are necessary for planning, revising and/or editing pieces of writing (as cited in Steve & Dolores, 2007 p. 15). These strategies of brainstorming or collaboration for peer revising proved to be very effective in improving students’ writing especially for those who have difficulty in writing.
1.5.1.2. Summarization
Teaching students how to summarize texts is a writing instruction that can lead them to write better summaries. This can be done either by teaching them summarization techniques or by giving them models of good summaries.
1.5.1.3.Collaborative Writing
This involves arranging students in groups to write collaboratively together to plan, draft, and edit each others' compositions. It is very effective in enhancing writing quality as mentioned by Yarrow and Topping (2001): “Collaborative writing involves peers writing as a team. In one approach, a higher achieving student is assigned to be the helper (tutor) and a lower achieving student is assigned to be the writer (tutee)” (as cited in Steve & Dolores, 2007, p. 16)
1.5.1.4.Specific Product Goals
Such technique is done by giving students specific and clear goals for their writings.
This means identifying the aim of the assignment and the features of their final work. Ferreti, Mac Arthur, and Dowdy (2000) identified this element saying that “setting specific product goals provides students objectives to focus on particular aspects of their writing, for example, students may be instructed to take a position and write a persuasive letter designed to lead an audience to agree with them” (as cited in Steve & Dolores, 2007, p. 17).
1.5.1.5.Word Processing
Via the use of computers, word processing instruction enhances the quality of texts produced by students, especially low achieving writers. In this kind of instruction, students type their composition on laptops and this equipment allows them to add, delete, and move the text easily as it may include spelling checkers as well.
1.5.1.6.Sentence Combining
Sentence combining as a writing strategy involves teaching students to construct complex sentences. The latter can be done by giving those activities in which they are supposed to combine two or more sentences in a single one.
1.5.1.7.Prewriting
This instruction is done by giving students some tasks and exercises in order to help them have more ideas about the topic. Learners are supposed to write before starting to write This can be through reading, group discussions in which you ask them to have a plan before writing...
1.5.1.8.Inquiry Activities
“Inquiry means engaging students in activities that help them develop ideas and content for a particular writing task by analysing immediate concrete data.” (Steve & Dolores, 2007, p. 1 9). This aims at developing students' inquiry skills.
1.5.1.9.Process Writing Approach
This approach includes many activities that give students many opportunities to write for real audiences. Activities of self reflection, personalized instruction, goals, and cycles of planning, translating and reviewing.
1.5.1.10. Study of Models
This kind of instruction requires giving students good models and examples for each type of writing they are supposed to complete. Ask them to analyse these models and by doing so students will discover the critical side of these examples using their writing.
1.5.1.11.Writing for Content Area Learning
Writing is proved as an effective way of learning the content of any subject matter.
This instruction is called writing to learn activities. For example writing to learn a language is very helpful in enhancing students’ language proficiency and in turn enhances students’
quality of writing.
Conclusion
From what has been said before, we can say that writing is a difficult and complex skill that involves more than simply collecting sentences and putting them together in a specific sequence. Rather, it requires mastering organizational devices and conventional mechanics to produce an effective piece of writing. EFL learners need to be aware of the significance of writing skills and their relationship with other language skills. Indeed, they need to know the various elements of effective writing and the difficulties experienced by language learners while writing in order to overcome them and produce effective writing. One way to achieve this is to look at writing as a process that contains different stages rather than just a product. In the following chapter, we will examine the impact of oral correcting feedback on enhancing students' writing.
Chapter two: Oral Corrective Feedback
Introduction
Feedback plays an important role in the learning process in general and in the development of the writing skill in particular. It has been a lasting concern for researchers as well as for teachers of writing. Thus providing feedback is often seen as the most challenging task for teachers. This is because responding to students’ writing is probably an important aspect of writing in EFL context. This response has a powerful impact on students’ writing ability; the present chapter seeks to examine this impact.
2.1. Definition of Feedback, Corrective Feedback, and Oral Feedback
A few years ago, as a result of its increasing importance in EFL learning through classroom interaction, Teachers' feedback has become a highly controversial issue be it in its oral or written form and both in oral and written discourses. In EFL classrooms, feedback could be defined as the teachers′ response to student′ oral or written performance either by spoken or written comments as an attempt to improve their linguistic productions. Hattie and Timperely (2007) gave a general definition for the term: “information provided by an agent regarding some aspects of one′s performance or understanding” (p. 81).
Another definition is for Duly, Bust, and Krashen (1982), for them feedback is the receiver′s as a listener or reader reply on the student′s written or oral productions. This means that feedback is the information given to learners about their performance. The same view is shared by Moss and Bookhart (2009); “a teacher′s response to student work with the intention of furthering learning” (p. 44).
However, corrective feedback (CF), on the other hand, is defined earlier by Chaudron (1977), who considered it as “any reaction of the teacher which clearly transforms, disapprovingly refers to, or demands improvement of, the learner’s utterance” (p. 31).
Lightbown and Spades (1999) in their turn indicated that CF is an indication from the teacher
to the learner that his or her performance in the target language is erroneous and it may take many responses. CF then can be explicit (for example, “No”, you should say “goes”, not
“go”) or implicit (for example “yes, he goes to school every day”) as it may or may not include metalinguistic information (for example, “don′t forget to make the verb agree with the subject”). (pp. 172-173). In the same vein, Ellis (2009) differentiated between feedback and corrective feedback saying that CF constitutes one part of the negative feedback.
Moreover, teachers’ feedback in writing classes receives considerable attention from many researchers. Two of them were Hamp Lyons and Ben Heasly (1987), they argued that feedback that students receive on their written production has a significant role, first as a motivator for further learning and as an insurer that the teacher′s texts are understandable (as cited in Ouskourt, 2008, p. 110). In addition, Solhi and Eginli (2020) offered another definition for CF in writing classes; they declared that CF refers to inference explanations and responses on the consistency and correctness given as a response to students' writings, with the aim of improving their writing ability towards efficacy.
For Frey and Fisher (2011) oral feedback is the type of feedback that comes mainly through the spoken form. The latter requires well timing and interaction. Therefore, the setting, the structure, and the tone are of major concern when providing students with oral feedback.
2.2. The Role of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning
Corrective feedback has been an important and controversial topic in the concept of second language learning. There are several theories regarding the role of corrective feedback in second language learning. Some theories considers that corrective feedback is harmful to second language learning and should be ruled out while others regard corrective feedback as a crucial motivator for second language development.
Universal Grammar Theory sees corrective feedback as the origin of negative
testimony. In this regard, Chomsky (1975) argued that what helps in learning a language is universal grammar (UG) not the corrective feedback of the teacher in which he has defined universal grammar as: “the system of principles, conditions, and rules that are elements of properties of all human languages” (p. 29). This means that the naivest theory objects any contribution for corrective feedback in the learning of linguistics competence because learning a language is entirely related to positive evidence (Scawartz, 1993). Oppositely, the innatist theory believes that humans are born with a biological propensity to learn the language and it encourages corrective feedback to interfere in the development of second language knowledge. Furthermore, the interactional cognitive theories regard corrective feedback as a fundamental contribution to the learning of both implicit and explicit second language knowledge. Intrinsically, the major interactional cognitive trends which support corrective feedback are the interactional hypothesis (Long, 1996), the output hypothesis (Swain, 1985), and the noticing hypothesis (Schmidt, 1994). Accordingly, this approach explicates language learning through input, output, and feedback in which they all occur during interaction (Grass & Mackey, 2006; Long, 1996).
Corrective feedback is blazingly studied in the interactional cognitive theories. As a matter of fact, the concept of communication takes an important place. Interaction research auscultates the relationship between communication and acquisition (Grass, 2003); this means that feedback is a result of communication. Likewise, Ellis (2008) stated that corrective feedback helps learning when learners focus on meaning in the context of communication.
Generally, interactional cognitive theories explain the universal features of corrective feedback.
To conclude, the sociocultural theory which mainly based on the work of Vygotsky declaimed corrective feedback from different points of view. It believed that language learning is mediated through social interaction between learners and more capable peers. In
which the process of learning takes place in the learner's zone of proximal development. Thus, sociocultural theory considers that the impact of corrective feedback on second language learning is connected with the learner's zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978).
2.3. The Debate about Corrective Feedback
Martinez (2006) argued that the issue of error treatment or corrective feedback is a debatable topic. Some researchers and theories support the role of corrective feedback in second language learning and especially in enhancing the writing of student. However, some scholars disagree and ignore its effectiveness. Accordingly, The antagonists said that it is unnecessary for the learning process.
The behaviourist theory is considered as an excellent support for corrective feedback.
Waston et al (as cited in Martinez, 2006, p. 4) stated that the learning process occurs through error correction; when students make mistakes, the teacher should correct them immediately and start the process of repetition of the correct forms to help the rest of the class learn them.
Additionally, an experiment conducted by Levine (1975) is another prop to the positive impact that corrective feedback has in which he mentioned the major disadvantages of non- correction of an erroneous form. In this line, if an error is not corrected, the speaker and the rest of the class will consider it as right. As a result, they will use it in the future.
Substantially, he proves in his experiment that teacher's correction of student's errors is crucial and it is a significant part of the learning process.
As it has been mentioned before, in second language learning some researchers are for corrective feedback while others are against the use of corrective feedback. Some theories reject entirely the role of corrective feedback. As a result, they claimed that learners go through different systematic stages to reach a stage in which they stop making errors. It is worth mentioning that there is no need for corrective feedback. Another evidence against
corrective feedback is that exaggeration in using corrective feedback can inhibit hesitant students to be engaged in the learning process (Edge, 1989, as cited in Martinez, 2006, p. 3).
In a similar vein, Truscott (1996) rejected the correction of grammar errors in his review essay in which he said that “that correction is harmful rather than simply ineffective...(and) that no valid reasons have been offered for containing the practice despite these overwhelming problems...thus, for the foreseeable future, any conclusion stands: grammar correction has no place in writing classes and should be abandoned” (pp. 360-367). In other words, Truscott's influential review claimed that corrective feedback has no effect on students' learning and should be abounded. Moreover, Lee (2009) mentioned some drawbacks of corrective feedback. Among these drawbacks we have the fact that corrective feedback does not ensure the improvement in students' writing. Eventually, it might push students to rely on their teachers.
2.4. Students′ Uptake
Uptake by definition is the learner′ s immediate response that follows the teachers′
corrective feedback on learner′s writing. Allwright (1984) defined the term uptake as “what learners claim to have learned from a particular lesson” (as cited in Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p.
49). In fact, students′ reaction to teachers′ feedback indicates whether the teacher's feedback is effective and useful or not, so when learners learn something new or change something in their written performance we can say that teacher′ feedback is effective. Therefore, Ferris (1995) listed some ways as students responses to feedback provided by teachers and the main ones are:
Error corrected
Incorrect Change
Deleted text
Substitution, correct, when the learner replaces the error by a correct form.
Substitution, incorrect, when the learner replaces the error by an incorrect form.
Teacher induced error, when the learner commits mistakes. (Ferris, 1995, as cited in Bouraya, 2012, p. 43).
Cohen (1987) claimed that students have restricted techniques through which they react to teacher’s feedback. Some students reported that they just noted mentally teacher’s comments on their work, taking notes referring to other papers, looking over comments, and doing nothing. He added that learners pay great attention to teacher’s feedback on grammar and mechanics (as cited in Ouskourt, 2008, p. 127). Accordingly, Hyland (2003, p. 179) determined three possible ways in which students may react to teacher’s feedback on their writings, students may:
Follow a comment closely in their revision (general corrections of Grammar errors)
Use the teacher’s comment as an initial stimulus which triggers several revisions (such as feedback on tone or style)
Avoid issues that receive feedback by deleting the problematic text (Hyland, 2003, p.
179).
Hyland also asserted that after receiving feedback students revise their work but without understanding the reason behind feedback and that’s why students generally delete things instead of rephrasing or correcting them. In another research, Erlam, Ellis, and Batstone(2013) maintained that uptake is the move that follows CF in which the learner reacts to the feedback move of the teacher. Thus it can constitute “repair” (i.e., the learner respond by producing the correct form) or ′′no-repair′′ (i.e., the learner simply knows the teacher’
feedback or fails to correct the error). Up to this point, we can restate saying that students react to teachers’ feedback differently. Either positively by repair or negatively by no repair.
And only according to students' uptake that we can declare whether the feedback is effective or not.
2.5. Strategies of Oral Corrective Feedback
Presently, oral corrective feedback is considered as an important part of the learning process. It refers to the information provided by the teacher or the instructor to his students when there is a misuse of the target language. Some research has been conducted in the field of second language learning and they found that there are various strategies employed by instructors to apply oral corrective feedback. However, according to Ellis (2009), there is no specific research that includes all the different strategies and classifications of oral corrective feedback.
Oral corrective feedback is generally divided into implicit and explicit. Some researchers prefer explicit feedback, while others prioritize implicit. And still others prefer a combination of both of them. The following are the six strategies mainly used by teachers to implement oral corrective feedback with some examples.
2.5.1. Explicit Feedback
The first strategy of oral corrective feedback is an explicit correction. It occurs when the teacher indicates the student's error and tries to correct it immediately. This strategy is useful and at the same time detrimental because it helps the student to learn the nature of error. Simultaneously, it makes him aware that he has produced an incorrect concept. For example, a student may say: “Sara and Sawssen has bought new cars.” The teacher may say
“no, it is incorrect sentence.” you should say “Sara and Sawssen have bought new cars.”
Teachers use this strategy with low- level students because they cannot find the right answer alone. To shed more light on the explicit correction we have the following quotation:
In providing the target like reformulation explicit error correction reduces the need for the learner to produce a modified response. Thus, explicit error correction [...] facilitates one type of processing, the noticing of an interlanguage
target language difference but reduces another type of processing the modified production of an interlanguage form to a more target-like form (Razei et al., 2001, p. 23).
2.5.2. Recast
According to Lyster and Ranta (1997), “recast is a teacher' reformulation of all or part of student utterances, mimes the error without directly indicating that the student’s utterances was incorrect, the teacher implicitly reformulate the student's error or provides the correction.” (p. 46). From the previous quote, we can say that recast refers to the process of reformulating the students' wrong utterances into the correct form. For example, when a student says “he has car.” The teacher replies “Oh, he has a car”. Generally, this strategy is mainly useful with shy and hesitant students to make them more comfortable and less anxious.
2.5.3. Clarification Request
This strategy is less frequent compared to others because it does not seem very efficient. It occurs when the teacher requests clarification from the student when they produce something wrong or in other words they make a mistake. Teachers use terms like “excuse me?” Or “I do not understand” to denote that the message was unclear. The main purpose of teachers behind using such terms is to point that “the message has not been understood or the student utterances contained some kind of mistake and that a repetition or reformulation is required.” (Tedick & Gloria, 1998, p. 3). For example, a student says “I would like to share you about how is applying job” the teacher responds “excuse me,” so the student will try to correct the sentence and says “I would like to share you about how to apply the job.”
However, the correct form is “I would...share with you...apply for”.
2.5.4. Elicitation
Elicitation is a technique that prompts learners to self-correct (Panova & Lyster, 2002); teachers try to elicit the correct form by asking the question. For example, “how do we say that in English?” or making pauses to help the student in completing sentences. For instance, the teacher may say “she has...?” or pushing students to reformulate the sentence like saying “can you say that again?”.
2.5.5. Repetition
Repetition means that the teacher repeats the incorrect form of the student in which he uses rise towns or emphatic stress to indicate for the student the location of the error. For example, the student says “I goed to the circus yesterday” the teacher would repeat the sentence with a specific focus on the word goed “you goed to the circus yesterday?” In this case, the teacher is trying to raise the student's attention to the fact that the verb is not conjugated in the right way in order to correct it alone without the help of the teacher.
2.5.6. Meta- Linguistic Feedback
Meta-linguistic cues are information provided by the teacher about an erroneous form without explicitly correcting it. They can be either comments, information, or question-related to the incorrect utterance. For example, the student says “he has car” and the teacher replies
“he has car” you need the indefinite article “a.” Furthermore, teachers should use simplified forms of meta-linguistic cues to help the student in understanding the concept addressed. To conclude, metalinguistic feedback is seldom as memorable as other teaching options (Silvia, 2006).
2.6.The Focus of Feedback: Form Focus VS Content Focus
Theoretically speaking, approaches which prioritize fluency over grammatical accuracy are against focusing on form when providing feedback. Truscott (1996) for example was against grammar correction. He argued that feedback on form is ineffective, time absorbing and potentially harmful because it diverts attention from organization; the logical development of ideas, demotivate students, make writers fearful of the red pen and encourages the writer to rely only on simpler, more safe sentence structures.
However, Ferris (1999) criticized Truscott. The former claimed that Truscott did not take into consideration the huge research findings that support some kind of grammar correction and claimed that Truscott in deducing his conclusions relied on limited, incomplete, and unconvincing data. In his study, Ferris (1995) concluded that students’ that were asked to submit a single draft in writing classes prefer receiving feedback that focuses more on form, whereas students that were required to submit many drafts of their piece of writing valued content focused feedback.
Similar to that of Ferris, The findings of Hedgcock and Leftkowits (1994; 1996) asserted that EFL learners in process oriented classrooms where students are asked to submit various drafts value both meaning and form feedback. While EFL learners in product oriented classes, where students are required to submit only one final draft, prefer form focused feedback.
Fazio (2001) in another research investigated the effects of three different types of feedback (form focused, content focused, a combination of form and content feedback) on grammatical accuracy. He cited that all types of feedback provided fail in making any significant change in the number of errors made by participants. Moreover, Ferris and other researchers believed that feedback focus should go beyond form or content (Ferris, Pezone, Tade & Tniti, 1997). They added that the timing of feedback (when to provide feedback on
form and when to provide it on content) that should be a matter of discussion. For example, Zamel (1985) argued that form and content feedback should be used simultaneously because students cannot distinguish which one requires more attention.
As a conclusion, we can say that teachers are encouraged to provide feedback on both levels. They should focus on content first and at the same time they are required to note and save comments concerning the form for subsequent drafts when students are polishing their work before submission. This is in order to insure students’ improvement on both levels.
2.7.Sources of Feedback
There are different ways for providing feedback on writing and the teacher is not the
only source of it. We can distinguish many types of feedback according to who provides it and how. Therefore, teacher, peer, conferencing, self correction, and electronic correction constitute the common sources of feedback.
2.7.1. Teacher’s Feedback
Teachers have been the main source of feedback both in oral and written classes. A
survey conducted on students' preferences regarding feedback by Waishing (2000) indicated that EFL students prefer teachers’ written feedback and consider it the best form of feedback compared to alternative forms such as peer feedback. Ferris (2003) mentioned some of teachers’ comments advantages saying “this type of feedback may represent the single biggest investment of time by instructors, and it is certainly clear that students highly value and appreciate it” (p. 41). However, despite students’ positive view regarding teachers’ feedback, its significance in developing students’ writing ability is still debatable. Addressing this issue Ferris (1997) found that teachers’ comments on student’s drafts in many cases made matters worse.
2.7.2. Peer Feedback: Peer evaluation, peer editing, and peer responses refer to the kind of
feedback in which students co-operate, and each one of them reads his peer’ paper and responds to it (Li Waishing, 2000). In EFL classes peer feedback becomes an important alternative to teachers’ feedback. Supporting the use of peer feedback, Hyland (2003) claimed: “collaborative peer review helps learners engage in a community of equals who respond to each others’ work and together create an authentic social context for interaction and learning” (p. 198). In addition to Hyland’s claims, Mendonca and Johnson (1994) stated that peer feedback develops student’
critical reading and analysis skills. One more benefit of peer feedback is that students receive immediate feedback from their peers rather than waiting for days and weeks later.
Despite its potential advantages, following such technique in providing feedback students may not be qualified enough to respond to each others’ work. In this vein, Hyland (2003) asserted that students prefer teachers’ feedback, and they did not trust the feedback they receive from their peers; “students themselves are rather ambivalent about the quality of their peer suggestions and may both mistrust them and fear ridicule due to their poor proficiency, generally preferring feedback from teachers.” (Hyland, 2003, p. 199). Urza (1987) supported Hyland’ claim and added that in taking the role of responding to each other’s work students may not be able to make comments of contrastive nature and generally they tend to address surface errors rather than those of meaning.
2.7.3. Conferencing
Conferencing or face to face feedback is another way of responding to students’
writings in which a conversation between teacher and students takes place. When discussing the errors made by students Hyland and Hyland (2006) defined teacher – students’
conferencing as “an approach lauded by L1 researchers as a dialogue in which meaning and
interpretation are constantly being negotiated by participants and as a method that provides both teaching and learning benefits”(p. 5). For Hyland (2003) this way of providing feedback gives students opportunities to negotiate meanings and clarify ambiguities. Zamel (1985) also advocated the use of conferences in favour of written comments and argued that conferencing provides students with more focused and useable comments unlike written comments which are generally vague, confusing and are only “one way communication.”
However there are several disadvantages of this feedback’ source. Hyland and Hyland (2006) for example stated that some students may not be able to talk to their teachers face to face because of the psychological pressure like anxiety, as they may not have the required speaking skills that enable them to discuss freely in oral conferences. Such conferences require a considerable amount of time to deal with each piece of writing individually. Finally, Ferris (2003) claimed that conferencing is a possible rather than a required technique of providing feedback.
2.7.4. Self Feedback
Self feedback or self correction/evaluation is a process by which students reflect on, respond to, and evaluate the quality of their work and their learning. They can also judge the extent to which they reached the stated goals or follow a given criteria and identify strengths and weaknesses of their work and then revise it accordingly (Andrade & Du, 2007). Bitchner, Young and Cameron (2005) stated that self correction is an indirect mode of feedback where the teacher is supposed to provide students with choices that allow them to discern the correct form by themselves.
Self mode of feedback has also its advantages as declared by Bannister and Baker (2000), self feedback promotes students' critical thinking, independence, and autonomy. It also proved to have positive effects on students’ productions such as the reduction of the
